Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 24, 2021.

Scott Thomas (disambiguation))[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RDAB. The first one seems to have been created on accident, the others were moved from these titles within minutes. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Sea Capital[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 17:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varna is indeed seen as a "maritime capital" of Bulgaria, but – even allowing for the fact that such descriptions may not be as common elsewhere – it's still odd to have such a general term redirect to one specific place. – Uanfala (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Consistent page views across the years, and plenty of Google hits for The Sea Capital which bring up Bulgaria-related pages. Also, it's not clear under what criteria this has been nominated for deletion. Jay (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I thought it was commonly known. Generally, it's bad to have terms with broad reference redirecting to articles about specific instances. This has the potential to mislead readers into thinking, in this case, that the only sea capital is the Bulgarian one. – Uanfala (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which of the points under Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Reasons_for_deleting would that be? Jay (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Technically, point 2. Not sure I agree that it should be deleted, but creating reader confusion is definitely an acceptable reason for deletion. Tamwin (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Point 2 is about confusion definitely, but not the kind nom was referring to which is General term > Specific article. However, in case if #2 is the reason, then I would say Disambig the page if there is another candidate that claims to be the sea capital. Jay (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            The only other claimants to the title I can find are an investment company and a hotel; neither seems notable. Certes (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            When I search on Google Books, I find all sorts of places referred to like that, such as St. Petersburg [1] and Tyre [2] – Uanfala (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            I tried the two links, one took me to International Scientific Conference Energy Management of Municipal Facilities and Sustainable Energy Technologies EMMFT 2019, and the other gave an error from Google Books - No results in this book for "the sea capital of". However, if you were referring to Saint Petersburg, Russia and Tyre, Lebanon, then there is no mention of sea capital in the articles. Jay (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            The first book, p. 400: "Throughout the history, the brand 'Sea Capital of Russia' is actively formed and supported in St. Petersburg.". The second book, p. 13: "Tyre had grown in importance until it was the sea capital of the world".
            My point was not that any of those two particular places should be mentioned as a "sea capital". My point was that the term has been used for a variety of places besides Varna (as made clear by even the most cursory look on Google Books). – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            Agree that Saint Petersburg is a suitable candidate for "Sea Capital of Russia". Tyre as a candidate, not so much. For the generic "Sea Capital" Google still prefers Varna. We can revisit this Rfd for a DAB in future when the target artcles Varna and Saint Petersburg mention them respectively as the sea capital. Jay (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            Well, I see roughly equal number of hits on Google (c. 120 actual results) for both Varna and St. Petersburg [3] [4]. Otherwise, yes: neither article mentions the exact phrase "sea capital", though Varna, Bulgaria does note the city is perceived as a "maritime capital". I don't think dabifying will be viable due to the vague nature of the term and the broad set of the applicable targets (the two cities above were just examples). – Uanfala (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep searching for "Sea capital" on google brings up mainly partial title matches for non-notable financial institutions. For actual places, Varna is the clear primary topic - I didn't get any hits for St Petersburg or Tyre, but I did get 1 each for Tallinn and Stockholm. I agree that disambiguation is unlikely to be viable here, but I do think a set index for places named/nicknamed "sea capital" or "maritime capital" (the latter title seems to be most frequently applied to Singapore and Rotterdam about equally with less frequent occurrences of London and Dubai) along the lines of Paris of the North would work. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Harry Callahan (Disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This recent creation is an error (capitalised "D"). I reverted the move of Harry Callahan to Harry Callahan (Disambiguation) and this artefact should be deleted. The correctly capitalised version already exists Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Consortium for the Bar Code of Life:[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consortium for the Bar Code of Life was created just two minutes later, so it seems that this WP:UNNATURAL typo does not have any use. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP "Bar code" is not an uncommon typo, it's a common spelling, and until recently it was more common than "barcode". ngram data —Pengo 21:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Delete sorry I missed the colon —Pengo 12:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Bar code" Vs "Barcode" redirects are completely reasonable to have, but this redirect has an extra semi-colon appended to the end which seems to have no relation to the target and makes this an implausible search term in my opinion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nome and 86. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

James Cannon,[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be another typo during redirect creation; the target article never existed under this title. Given that James Cannon is not a redirect to the article about the bishop, I think this one is doing more harm than good. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The ending comma is meaningless. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Organizational Ombudsman,[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite make sense of the page history at the target, though it seems the article was moved on the day after its creation. This is getting virtually no page views, so I don't think we need to keep it around. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Frank Pakenham,[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 00:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL error, probably a typo when Frank Pakenham (which had been created before this one) was intended to be created. Does not seem to have any use. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Little-used (though not completely unused), but the WP:UNNATURAL rationale rings false. A comma in an article title with a comma in it is different to a full stop ending an article title that doesn't; I can confirm myself that accidentally hitting enter after typing a comma is not infrequent. For a very long name like that, it's a believable redirect. Vaticidalprophet 17:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect that is a portion of the target page title is still WP:UNNATURAL. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:UNNATURAL is inapplicable. It applies to "Titles with punctuation, obscure errors, additions, or removals that have no specific affinity to one title over any other" (emphasis added). Here, the punctuation has affinity to this article because it is part of the full article title. Tamwin (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguing over the applicability of an essay is unlikely to bear much fruit. I do note that there is a passage in the essay which goes: You can reduce this burden by: [...] not sending redirects to RFD, unless there is a serious problem that can't be solved any other way. These RfDs aren't helpful. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Afar translation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cross project redirect that takes editors searching for a wikiproject to a dead wiki in the incubator. I think this is an inappropriate redirect for 4 main reasons:

  1. The target is not a wikiproject, or anything related to the English encyclopaedia for that matter.
  2. As we recently saw with the scots wiki controversy often the last thing these small encyclopaedias need is an influx of well intentioned English speakers trying to translate content into another language. This project needs an active community of native speakers to get started.
  3. We don't make this style of redirects for any other language projects, so this is more likely to surprise editors than help them.
  4. The project is dead, it had only 7 pages when closed in 2007, none written by a native speaker, and currently has 21 pages, most of which contain a single word or single sentences. There is no benefit to the English Wikipedia arising from our editors being sent there. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (I suddenly go from bleeding heart inclusionist-delusionist to chainsaw-wielding deletionist when the issue is microprojects.) Well aside from the fact this blatantly isn't what people are searching for, even if someone follows that link, as 86 so eloquently notes, the most likely outcome is bad for all parties. Projects lacking native speakers rapidly turn into embarrassments or even wide-ranging dangers to the stability of the language (scowiki was literally in Scots machine learning corpuses, lest we forget). Vaticidalprophet 17:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jaysol[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More redirects from various brands of hand sanitiser to the article on ethanol. I think these should either be deleted or retargeted to point at hand sanitizer. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all unless mentioned somewhere on WP. If mentioned, retarget there. The current target would seem to violate WP:ASTONISH. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pinkston Watersports[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 2#Pinkston Watersports

Molodova[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect long ago as a misspell of Moldova but Molodova appears to be the name of several subjects, like a village in Eastern Ukraine (Молодова), a group of archaeological sites on Western Ukraine (Молодове (археологія)), a settlement from the Stone Age (Молодове I), an ancient culture (Молодовська культура) and another former village in Western Ukraine (Молодове). I haven't found any potential appropiate target articles for this redirect so I think it should be deleted. Super Ψ Dro 14:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to encourage article creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom to avoid confusion and inspire article creation. Less Unless (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

François‑Wolff Ligondé[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 2#François‑Wolff Ligondé

Gene R. Nichol,[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL typo, seemingly an accident. Note that the correct form, Gene R. Nichol, exists. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

American Broadcasting Companies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#American Broadcasting Companies

Wikipedia:NEW[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Wikipedia:NEW

🙌[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Raising hands. There is consensus against the current target, and Raising hands has the highest support for an alternative. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raising hands seems like a better target, given that the symbol is called PERSON RAISING BOTH HANDS IN CELEBRATION. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or disambiguate. Raising hands is what is portrayed by the emoji, so it's definitely the better fit of the two. On the other hand, one could argue that since they're both possible targets, a disambiguation page would be better. Tamwin (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Brushless AC electric motor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Brushless AC electric motor

WINE in Puppy Screen Shots[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be a plausible search term one might use to reach target article. Pageviews shows like 0 usage. Melmann 10:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Alcare Hand Degermer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specific brand of hand sanitizer that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on enwiki that the search function can find. This is useless pointing at the current target, as anyone looking for this brand is not going to find the content at ethanol useful. Hog Farm Talk 06:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Appears to be part of PotatoBot Task 5 ("Creates redirects from trade names to drug articles"). Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are a rather degenerate case of that task - yes in the pharmaceutical sense they only have one "active ingredient", but per nominator that's almost certainly not what searchers are trying to find. We have an article about the manufacturer Steris, maybe worth adding a mention there? 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "Alcare Hand Degermer". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there is no content on WP to point to. The current target is certainly not helpful and inappropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_24&oldid=1021783577"